The Water is based on Christoff Horman's water tutorial, and the stars
are from the standard stars.inc. The mountians are pure-POV. I'm having
a few issues with the scene so far:

Is the scale of the ship beleivable? 
I can't get the trees on the mountains to show up better in the dim
light. I'm not sure if upping their ambient value will do what I want,
since they should only be lit from the left.

I hope the image isn't too dark. I rendered it on a Mac and it should be
dark, but not too dark to see any details.

Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
http://www.spiritone.com/~english

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mountains.jpg' (67 KB)

Preview of image 'mountains.jpg'

Josh English wrote:
> 
> The Water is based on Christoff Horman's water tutorial, and the stars
> are from the standard stars.inc. The mountians are pure-POV. I'm having
> a few issues with the scene so far:
> 
> Is the scale of the ship beleivable?

What ship? ;-)

I think the scale is right.

> I can't get the trees on the mountains to show up better in the dim
> light. I'm not sure if upping their ambient value will do what I want,
> since they should only be lit from the left.

Have you tried radiosity?

The trees look a bit like 'lego'.

> I hope the image isn't too dark. I rendered it on a Mac and it should be
> dark, but not too dark to see any details.

It's fairly bright here, maybe you should show a version without gamma
correction so everyone can adjust it for his individual monitor
characteristic.

The mountain on the left looks interesting, how was it done?

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 06 Feb. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

"Josh English" <eng### [at] spiritonecom> wrote in message
news:3C713320.503F6D88@spiritone.com...

<snip>

The trees don't look right - they seem very two dimensional, the base trunk
(i.e. the trunk w/o foliage) seems to long, and in general they seem too
regular. Also, IMHO, they are scaled about *2 larger than I would expect.

I noticed working on my current IRTC entry that it is hard to get away with
simple fir trees even at a great distance.

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Josh English wrote:
> >
> > The Water is based on Christoff Horman's water tutorial, and the stars
> > are from the standard stars.inc. The mountians are pure-POV. I'm having
> > a few issues with the scene so far:
> >
> > Is the scale of the ship beleivable?
> 
> What ship? ;-)
> 
> I think the scale is right.
> 
> > I can't get the trees on the mountains to show up better in the dim
> > light. I'm not sure if upping their ambient value will do what I want,
> > since they should only be lit from the left.
> 
> Have you tried radiosity?

Yep. It washed out all the colors towards a dull brown. Even the clouds
were tinted brown. I can't get the hang of the new radiosity features yet.
> 
> The trees look a bit like 'lego'.

They are a simple macro: two cones and a little random turbulence on the
second cone. I'd like to make them a bit more detailed, but there's a
lot of them and I'm worried about memory consumption (Granted, I just
got a RAM boost so I shouldn't have as many problems now)
> 
> > I hope the image isn't too dark. I rendered it on a Mac and it should be
> > dark, but not too dark to see any details.
> 
> It's fairly bright here, maybe you should show a version without gamma
> correction so everyone can adjust it for his individual monitor
> characteristic.

I used assumed gamma 1.2 for that render. I forgot to set it back to
1.0. It didn't make any difference on my screen. 
> 
> The mountain on the left looks interesting, how was it done?
> 

Both the mountain peak and the range were the result of an experiment. I
was trying to develop a more realistic background for the IRTC animation
entry I am working on and a happy accident led me to develop this scene,
which I've had in my head for some time. I'd like to say it was
completely done in POV-Ray, but the ship body is an intersection of
three height-fields.

Here is the mountain code:
#declare Peak =
height_field {
      function 400,400 {
         pigment {
            boxed scale 0.45 translate <0.5,0.5,0> turbulence 0.2
octaves 7 lambda 2.1
            poly_wave 2.5 } }
      //water_level 0.001
      translate <-0.5,0,-0.5>
      pigment { slope { <-3,-10,0> 0 0.5 } 
                color_map { [0 Tan ] [0.5 Brown ] [0.51 White*2 ] [1.0
White*2] }}
      rotate 30*y
      scale <3,1.5,3>*40
      translate <-50,-1.001,100>
   }

#declare MountainRange =
height_field {
      function 600,600 {
         pigment {
            cylindrical scale 0.40 translate <0.5,0.5,0> turbulence 0.3
octaves 7 lambda 2.1
            poly_wave 2.0 } }
      //water_level 0.001
      translate <-0.5,0,-0.5>
      pigment { slope { <1,-10,0> 0 0.5 } 
                color_map { [0 Tan ] [0.5 Brown ] [0.5 White*2 ] [1.0
White*2] }}
      rotate 90*y
      scale <-8,1.2,3>*40
      translate <00,-1.001,110>
   }

After plugging the function into a height field I went all out and also
used slope patterns for the first time.

Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
http://www.spiritone.com/~english

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> 
> "Josh English" <eng### [at] spiritonecom> wrote in message
> news:3C713320.503F6D88@spiritone.com...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The trees don't look right - they seem very two dimensional, the base trunk
> (i.e. the trunk w/o foliage) seems to long, and in general they seem too
> regular. Also, IMHO, they are scaled about *2 larger than I would expect.
> 
> I noticed working on my current IRTC entry that it is hard to get away with
> simple fir trees even at a great distance.

I'm finding out that it isn't very satisfying. I could alter the heights
quite easily for each tree. I'll try scaling them down a bit.

Thanks

Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
http://www.spiritone.com/~english

Post a reply to this message